..shall I cut the barrel???
I am modifying a kit for a rifled flintlock gun. The design is the nearly timeless ´neutral´ old german hunting gun type that develloped into the Kentuky rifle.
The object is to customise this into a travellers gun for a horseman; a flintlock carbine.
I have modified the stock so it can now hold a short barrel length with afront stock to match. The barrel came 35" and the ramrod entry is now such that a barrel length of 14" would be minimum.
The kit camw with a very poorly (in fact plain WRONGLY) worked butt so I will need to cut off nearly 2" to fit the neat bronze butt plate.
As the gun will be as much lighter as I cut from the barrel this will improve balance and also makes it possible to add some weight to the butt to further facilitate one handed shooting as the gun will be light anyway.
I am open to suggestion as I am going to cut the barrel only once :lol:
peter
You might look up some statistics on "saddle" carbines and cavalry carbines.
My dad has a 30-30 caliber carbine model that shoots very accurately, and which is a real pleasure to carry when pushing through brush/ weeds.. It has close to a 20" (508 mm) long barrel. That is as measured from the end of the chamber (its a cartridge gun) to the mouth of the barrel. I did not check, but it seems like I recall that a lot of the equestrian style carbines seem to fall in the range of 19" to 21" barrel length. I would be worried (not certain about effects, and ideal rifling for shorter barrels) about eliminating too much twist/ rifling if you have a rifled barrel that was 36", and you cut much more than 16" of it off!
My dad has a 30-30 caliber carbine model that shoots very accurately, and which is a real pleasure to carry when pushing through brush/ weeds.. It has close to a 20" (508 mm) long barrel. That is as measured from the end of the chamber (its a cartridge gun) to the mouth of the barrel. I did not check, but it seems like I recall that a lot of the equestrian style carbines seem to fall in the range of 19" to 21" barrel length. I would be worried (not certain about effects, and ideal rifling for shorter barrels) about eliminating too much twist/ rifling if you have a rifled barrel that was 36", and you cut much more than 16" of it off!
Yes Jared, that is the most practical approach. I was looking at ´classics´ too. The rifled ones are between 16 and 20".
The twist of the barrel is 1 in 66".
The ´matching´ pistols from the same source have a twist with of 1 in 16" the same caliber with a 10" barrel.
It has no other effect than losing accuracy.
Another thing to bear in mind when cutting down a barrel is that the kickback will increase lineairy with the weight decrease so it is wise to drop in charge which reduces range. As I am a hobbyist not depending on accuracy at range for survival this mainly increases safety :lol:
The 1858 Remington Revolving Carbine is .44 and 18".
Have not found it´s twist.
I am looking at the resulting stock length too both for estetic and balance purposes. I am looking at an 18" barrel
with a 14" stock (draw is the term?).
As cutttin só much off the barrel will take close to 3 pounds off the weight, I plan to drill two holes and drop some .45 balls in with glue. This will impove balance and reduce some of the kickback. I am still doodeling on paper to try figure out where best to put the lead so as to have maximm effect of them counterbalancing rising or dropping of the barrel due to the kickback.
It is very academic and of little importance but why not do it as ´right´ as I can think of ;)
peter
The twist of the barrel is 1 in 66".
The ´matching´ pistols from the same source have a twist with of 1 in 16" the same caliber with a 10" barrel.
It has no other effect than losing accuracy.
Another thing to bear in mind when cutting down a barrel is that the kickback will increase lineairy with the weight decrease so it is wise to drop in charge which reduces range. As I am a hobbyist not depending on accuracy at range for survival this mainly increases safety :lol:
The 1858 Remington Revolving Carbine is .44 and 18".
Have not found it´s twist.
I am looking at the resulting stock length too both for estetic and balance purposes. I am looking at an 18" barrel
with a 14" stock (draw is the term?).
As cutttin só much off the barrel will take close to 3 pounds off the weight, I plan to drill two holes and drop some .45 balls in with glue. This will impove balance and reduce some of the kickback. I am still doodeling on paper to try figure out where best to put the lead so as to have maximm effect of them counterbalancing rising or dropping of the barrel due to the kickback.
It is very academic and of little importance but why not do it as ´right´ as I can think of ;)
peter
| Peter Bosman wrote: |
| Yes Jared, that is the most practical approach. I was looking at ´classics´ too. The rifled ones are between 16 and 20".
The twist of the barrel is 1 in 66". The ´matching´ pistols from the same source have a twist with of 1 in 16" the same caliber with a 10" barrel. It has no other effect than losing accuracy. Another thing to bear in mind when cutting down a barrel is that the kickback will increase lineairy with the weight decrease so it is wise to drop in charge which reduces range. As I am a hobbyist not depending on accuracy at range for survival this mainly increases safety :lol: The 1858 Remington Revolving Carbine is .44 and 18". Have not found it´s twist. I am looking at the resulting stock length too both for estetic and balance purposes. I am looking at an 18" barrel with a 14" stock (draw is the term?). As cutttin só much off the barrel will take close to 3 pounds off the weight, I plan to drill two holes and drop some .45 balls in with glue. This will impove balance and reduce some of the kickback. I am still doodeling on paper to try figure out where best to put the lead so as to have maximm effect of them counterbalancing rising or dropping of the barrel due to the kickback. It is very academic and of little importance but why not do it as ´right´ as I can think of ;) peter |
Wow! You are planning some major modifcations to your gun.
I believe the "draw" you are referring to is the distance from the trigger to the butt of the gun. This is a measure of the fit of the gun to the individual shooter and is often referred to as "trigger reach" as well as other terms. A person of average size may be most comfortable with the 14" figure or even less. One of my rifles only has a 13" reach and at 6' 2" tall with a 35 inch sleeve I am still able to shoot it comfortably.
Cutting off the barrel will increase the recoil of the gun so reducing the charge is important. The shorter barrel will have some effect on accuracy with the slow twist you describe, but if you are not interested in accuracy that should not worry you. You should "crown" the muzzle after you cut the barrel down to make it easier to load as well as protect whatever accuracy is left.
Felt recoil is as much a function of stock design as it is weight and powder charge. Not knowing what kit you have purchased it is difficult to determine whether adding additional weight as described will be of any use. I would recommend waiting until after you have fired the gun a few times before adding weight. You may not need to do so. If you do I would be extremely careful on where I drilled and how much wood I removed. Mass-produced gun kits frequently have stock wood that has unusual grain patterns which were not considered when the stock was made. Removing much wood in the butt area may create problems for you.
Good luck with your project and be sure to send some photos of the completed gun.
| Peter Bosman wrote: |
|
I am still doodeling on paper to try figure out where best to put the lead so as to have maximm effect of them counterbalancing rising or dropping of the barrel due to the kickback. It is very academic and of little importance but why not do it as ´right´ as I can think of ;) peter |
As to rising of the barrel I personally don't think that this is an important issue affecting accuracy with a single shot weapon but may affect the felt recoil as far as it being comfortable or painful.
If the recoil is painful one may start flinching just " before " the shot actually goes off, also the delay from the trigger letting go of the spark and ignition of the main charge with a flintlock means that " NOT " flinching also means continuing aiming during and after this delay: Something one should do even with modern firearm with little ignition delay. If one doesn't follow through the tendency to move before the shot has left the barrel of the gun become significant. ( Obviously, once the bullet is out of the barrel any movement of the gun has no effect on accuracy ).
Muzzle climb is only an important factor if a second or more shots have to be fired quickly and fast recovery from recoil in this case becomes important with repeating multishot guns.
The design of the stock of a single shot weapon need not minimize muzzle climb but it should permit the muzzle to climb with ease by rolling in one's grip without causing pain.
| Lin Robinson wrote: |
|
I believe the "draw" you are referring to is the distance from the trigger to the butt of the gun. This is a measure of the fit of the gun to the individual shooter and is often referred to as "trigger reach" as well as other terms. |
You can go to some of the higher end gun manufacturer's web sites (Beretta International, etc.). They give the distance from the butt of the gun to the front of the untouched trigger as "Length of Pull."
Length of Pull is typically very close to 15 inches unless discussing very unusual physiology (guerrilla arms or something comparable.). A gun modified for a small child or small woman, or very large man (over 6' 3") may typically alter that dimension by about an inch. The longest length of pull I have seen was from the 1940's, for an enormous American Army General, and Olympic Trap shooter. His custom made shotgun had a 17" length of pull.
Fitting of guns is extremely tricky. Cutting the butt to fit often involves changing the slope of the butt pad (think "huge breasts" versus "flat chest") to a greater degree than changing it's length.
A combination of 1/8 inch (3 mm) non-ideal geometry on both the comb and length of pull can make a gun shoot high/ low. Likewise, most people prefer the feel of the stock canted (cast) horizontally left or right around 1/4 to 3/8 inches for comfort. Increments of 1/4" (about 6 mm) make a huge difference there. I recommend going to a skeet or trap range and trying some of the nicer guns that have stocks sculpted to account for cast, length of pull, and comb height for an average 6 ft tall male. The people there are usually enormously generous and enthusiastic towards other gun enthusiasts. They will most likely happily loan you their gun for some test shots and measurements if you have brought shells and photos (or the actual project) to share with them what you are trying to accomplish.
If you decide that you have cut too much off the butt of a gun, it is fairly common to buy pre-made plastic wedges to space rubber butt pads farther out. They can be ground and polished flush to the wood with common Dremmel tool tips and abrasive compounds.
Thanks Jared....I could not think of the term "length of pull" to save my life. Too many birthdays. Actually that is a more common term that "trigger reach".
Jean is completely correct in saying that muzzle climb with a single shot of any type is unimportant, as there will be no quick follow up shot. Dampening the recoil is the primary objective for, as Jean points out, too much recoil and a flintlock may well become a "flinchlock"!
Depending on the configuration of the barrel and the touch hole of the gun, ignition delay may or may not be a problem. Most modern gun makers equip their flintlocks with a touch hole liner that is counterbored, putting the main charge closer to the priming and making for a shorter jump from pan to chamber. Helps a lot. Also, the proper placement of the prming pan, the top of which should be level with the touch hole, is important. Finally, the shooter should prime his gun with the minimum amount of powder needed to ignite the main charge. Where the pan - touch hole alignment is faulty, it can take quite awhile for a large priming load of FFFFG powder to burn down to the touch hole and even when it is not, a large amount of priming does not work as efficiently. If there is no touch hole liner, coning the touch hole on the exterior side of the barrel can help. You just have to be careful not to remove too much metal, creating a potentially burned out touch hole.
Jean is completely correct in saying that muzzle climb with a single shot of any type is unimportant, as there will be no quick follow up shot. Dampening the recoil is the primary objective for, as Jean points out, too much recoil and a flintlock may well become a "flinchlock"!
Depending on the configuration of the barrel and the touch hole of the gun, ignition delay may or may not be a problem. Most modern gun makers equip their flintlocks with a touch hole liner that is counterbored, putting the main charge closer to the priming and making for a shorter jump from pan to chamber. Helps a lot. Also, the proper placement of the prming pan, the top of which should be level with the touch hole, is important. Finally, the shooter should prime his gun with the minimum amount of powder needed to ignite the main charge. Where the pan - touch hole alignment is faulty, it can take quite awhile for a large priming load of FFFFG powder to burn down to the touch hole and even when it is not, a large amount of priming does not work as efficiently. If there is no touch hole liner, coning the touch hole on the exterior side of the barrel can help. You just have to be careful not to remove too much metal, creating a potentially burned out touch hole.
15 inches is long. . . really, really long. For a rifled weapon, that is enormously long. Not only does the long butt make the weapon uncomfortable and "unnatural" to hold, it increases felt recoil and tends to hang on clothing. If you are wearing heavy winter clothing, it becomes even more difficult to manage the arm.
Now, admittedly, I have short arms, but the modern american standard for rifles is around 13.5 inches, for shotguns around 14 inches. Personally, I consider anything over 13 uncomfortable, and between 12.5 and 13 to be ideal for a weapon that will be used with layered or padded clothing.
Depending on individual conformation and dimensions, YMMV.
I wouldn't hack the barrel down to 14---if you do, you might as well have a pistol. 20 inches, maybe. Still going to be really short overall (a good thing), but that would give some extra barrel length for velocity, little extra sight radius, and a lot more "hang" (which is good, too).
Now, admittedly, I have short arms, but the modern american standard for rifles is around 13.5 inches, for shotguns around 14 inches. Personally, I consider anything over 13 uncomfortable, and between 12.5 and 13 to be ideal for a weapon that will be used with layered or padded clothing.
Depending on individual conformation and dimensions, YMMV.
I wouldn't hack the barrel down to 14---if you do, you might as well have a pistol. 20 inches, maybe. Still going to be really short overall (a good thing), but that would give some extra barrel length for velocity, little extra sight radius, and a lot more "hang" (which is good, too).
| John Cooksey wrote: |
| I wouldn't hack the barrel down to 14---if you do, you might as well have a pistol. 20 inches, maybe. Still going to be really short overall (a good thing), but that would give some extra barrel length for velocity, little extra sight radius, and a lot more "hang" (which is good, too). |
If I remember correctly, I don't know exactly from where, about 80% of the velocity in a rifle barrel is achieved in the first 8" to 14" of barrel and at an equal powder charge ( optimized for the longer barrel ) the short barrel will have much greater muzzle flash and a louder " BANG ". This may an give an exaggerated impression of heavier recoil greater than it actually is.
The lost of 10" or more of barrel length does mean a loss of weapon mass so some actual increase of recoil force may also be true. On the other hand a lot of the powder charge may just be expelled from the barrel before burning and increasing the power of the recoil as the energy will be wasted in that big muzzle flash past the end of the barrel.
A lot of these factors may cancel each other out, or close to, and will vary greatly depending on shot and powder charge.
With modern smokeless powders the different burning speeds of different propellents can be chosen to minimize flash and a fast powder would burn completely inside the shortened barrel. With black powder using FFG or FFFG could also make a difference as to what would be the optimum powder and shot charge for any given barrel length.
Oh, I agree that a 20" barrel would be both handy enough with a bit more sight radius and one need not cut down to 8" or 10" pistol length unless one wants or needs the shortest possible rifle.
| John Cooksey wrote: |
| 15 inches is long. . . really, really long. I consider anything over 13 uncomfortable, and between 12.5 and 13 to be ideal for a weapon that will be used with layered or padded clothing.
I wouldn't hack the barrel down to 14---if you do, you might as well have a pistol. 20 inches, maybe. . |
Anyone can visit the web sites of Beretta, Browning, or others offering multi-thousand dollar guns and see what they offer as standard LoP dimensions. The best advise I can think of is to try guns that are already finished, and figure out the dimensions that you like. If you hit with it and like it, your preference is not wrong. But, once you cut the wood off a stock, it is hard to put it back without losing something of the original beauty of the woodgrain.
In a previous "shopping decision" sampling of a large number of standard specification mass produced shotguns I found many of them had a length of pull between 14.5 to 15 inches. I am guessing this is targeted towards "average" male consumers and their preferences. How one wants the length of pull to be comes down to multiple factors (clothing preferences, stance when actually shooting, etc.)
I actually like the length of pull shorter than average to (about 14.5 "and sloped more, which is definitely shorter than as shipped standard manufacture double barrel shotguns.) I try to do the "fast draw" cowboy action mounting in trap, skeet, and sporting clays with modified chokes. Longer length of pull tends to snag in my arm pit when mounting. The clothing (amount of padding) does have a significant influence on preference.. Where I live it is warm. It was still near 32 C / 90F today (October 8th) in my town. I wear a light "windbreaker" jacket only during January and February. Many species of game are already in season per hunting regulations in my area for specialty arms and bows. Hunters were wearing light summer clothes today (shorts and tee shirts.) At least here, most of the final Length of Pull comes from the wood of the gun stock, not clothing. How close one holds the front hand to the receiver, and how upright the neck is maintained when quickly mounting has a significant influence on perceptions. Bending the knees and craning the neck forward tends to shorten the desired length of pull quite a bit. That is very inconvenient while mounted upon a horse, or when taking a fast crack shot while walking through heavily wooded thickets with just a half second opportunity to hit game. Comb geometry is really important as well, but seems to be discussed as independent of Length of Pull. I find that very unsettling as the two are equally important and very inter-related in setting elevation!
Some gun reviewers seem to have diminished the issue of "gun fit" as over-rated. I would be tempted to agree except for the experiences I have had with some older guns (full chokes, tweaked by a local gunsmith ) that I found I could consistently hit best personal scores ( a measely 80% or so in my case) in a variety of target sports. Once you experience that with an individual gun, you will not doubt that a fit tailored to your stance, geometry, and preferrences does make a difference.
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | ||
If I remember correctly, I don't know exactly from where, about 80% of the velocity in a rifle barrel is achieved in the first 8" to 14" of barrel and at an equal powder charge ( optimized for the longer barrel ) the short barrel will have much greater muzzle flash and a louder " BANG ". This may an give an exaggerated impression of heavier recoil greater than it actually is. The lost of 10" or more of barrel length does mean a loss of weapon mass so some actual increase of recoil force may also be true. On the other hand a lot of the powder charge may just be expelled from the barrel before burning and increasing the power of the recoil as the energy will be wasted in that big muzzle flash past the end of the barrel. A lot of these factors may cancel each other out, or close to, and will vary greatly depending on shot and powder charge. With modern smokeless powders the different burning speeds of different propellents can be chosen to minimize flash and a fast powder would burn completely inside the shortened barrel. With black powder using FFG or FFFG could also make a difference as to what would be the optimum powder and shot charge for any given barrel length. Oh, I agree that a 20" barrel would be both handy enough with a bit more sight radius and one need not cut down to 8" or 10" pistol length unless one wants or needs the shortest possible rifle. |
Is that figure for black or for smokeless propellants? I am not sure . . . . Longer barrel length does "generally" coincide not only with more velocity (to a point, as you state) but also with less ejecta. Unburned powder ejecta contributes directly to an increase in felt recoil, not just from the bigger flash. That's why "big gun" shooters sometimes choose a very fast burning propellant ---ensures more complete combustion in short-barreled "stoppers", and thus reducing felt recoil.
I am not a ballistics expert by any means, but I think it's fascinating.
Thank you all for the food for thought.
The gun is for fun.
To play on horseback. Obviously one ´aims' :lol: to hit something but foremost I want to be comfortable in the saddle.
The whole excersize is to make it a special sáddle gun. The gun stocked pistol featured in the other thread is a good example of such a gun.
A gunstock adds enourmously to stability of the firearm when mounted.
Reducing recoil and resulting levered movement will improve míne ;)
I already have been chiseling and filing on the stock to make it fit better in my hand. There is not enough wood to effect a real offset.
With a worn hoofrasp the wood can be contoured very nicely if one takes care how the grain goes.
The mentioned ´crowning´ indeed is important. I want to have this done próperly and also the relocation of the sight. This held me up considerable time but I have found a reputable metal worker.
I am not at all satisfied with the way the maker thought to have the butt finished nor do I like the nose cap. I am going to try and modify the butt plate and make a new nosecap. I have bone and horn but bronze would probably be better matching.
The butt is a pain :lol: They cut the stock to accomodate the buttplate but took a corner out 1" too deep!!! I am still looking at a way to minimise this damage but I am afraid I have no option but to cut the butt to eliminate this and the draw length will be a product. It will have to be.
Next on the list is making a saddle bar. I have stainless steel bar and ring but that looks wrong. I will get some orinairy iron and weld them myself. That will be less pecfect but more ´real´. This will also make it possible to offset the bar on the screw holes to it will be more in line with the gun axis. The bar must be truely secure to the stock and the only suiteable option is presented by the lock plate screws.
Back to the barrel lenght I am stíll .......
As was mentioned correctly it is a rífle, not a pistol but pistols were specialy invénted for mounted use and the original ones had lóng, 15 - 16" barrels! The trabuco of the time sometimes had barrels as short as 12". This completely blurring the distinction between pistol and gun (for mounted use) apart from the way is was meant to be handled, i.e. the stock.
Anyway, I am getting the butt sorted out first which leaves me time to digest your info further while hándling the parts. At the moment I am between:
- as a function of shóóting the barrel should be 19-20"
- as a function of hándling the barrel should be 15-16"
Looking at this mathemetically one would arrive at 17.5 and have something neither fish nor meat :wtf:
ARGHHHHHHHHH, let´s flip a coin.
peter
The gun is for fun.
To play on horseback. Obviously one ´aims' :lol: to hit something but foremost I want to be comfortable in the saddle.
The whole excersize is to make it a special sáddle gun. The gun stocked pistol featured in the other thread is a good example of such a gun.
A gunstock adds enourmously to stability of the firearm when mounted.
Reducing recoil and resulting levered movement will improve míne ;)
I already have been chiseling and filing on the stock to make it fit better in my hand. There is not enough wood to effect a real offset.
With a worn hoofrasp the wood can be contoured very nicely if one takes care how the grain goes.
The mentioned ´crowning´ indeed is important. I want to have this done próperly and also the relocation of the sight. This held me up considerable time but I have found a reputable metal worker.
I am not at all satisfied with the way the maker thought to have the butt finished nor do I like the nose cap. I am going to try and modify the butt plate and make a new nosecap. I have bone and horn but bronze would probably be better matching.
The butt is a pain :lol: They cut the stock to accomodate the buttplate but took a corner out 1" too deep!!! I am still looking at a way to minimise this damage but I am afraid I have no option but to cut the butt to eliminate this and the draw length will be a product. It will have to be.
Next on the list is making a saddle bar. I have stainless steel bar and ring but that looks wrong. I will get some orinairy iron and weld them myself. That will be less pecfect but more ´real´. This will also make it possible to offset the bar on the screw holes to it will be more in line with the gun axis. The bar must be truely secure to the stock and the only suiteable option is presented by the lock plate screws.
Back to the barrel lenght I am stíll .......
As was mentioned correctly it is a rífle, not a pistol but pistols were specialy invénted for mounted use and the original ones had lóng, 15 - 16" barrels! The trabuco of the time sometimes had barrels as short as 12". This completely blurring the distinction between pistol and gun (for mounted use) apart from the way is was meant to be handled, i.e. the stock.
Anyway, I am getting the butt sorted out first which leaves me time to digest your info further while hándling the parts. At the moment I am between:
- as a function of shóóting the barrel should be 19-20"
- as a function of hándling the barrel should be 15-16"
Looking at this mathemetically one would arrive at 17.5 and have something neither fish nor meat :wtf:
ARGHHHHHHHHH, let´s flip a coin.
peter
[quote="Jean Thibodeau"]
Right.
What you are saying adds up to:
You would not wánt to cut it shorter than 20 but the first 14 do most of the pushing.
Yes I want is as mangeable as possible since I am reasoning that most of the accuracy from horseback comes from the aim, not the gun. Hence the gunstock/pistolbarrel-like combinations for mounted used for cénturies.
I am tying to keep the draw as long as possible and that will be around 13".
This would estetically match a 14" barrel but I do agree that seems raher shortish in rifle terms. The shortest Marlin carbines range from 16 to 19.
The difference between 14 and 20 is 6" of barrel which is an awful lot of weight on the worst end of the stick. Now where do I have a nice coin to flip......?
peter
| John Cooksey wrote: |
| I wouldn't hack the barrel down to 14---......
If I remember correctly, I don't know exactly from where, about 80% of the velocity in a rifle barrel is achieved in the first 8" to 14" of barrel .... ... Oh, I agree that a 20" barrel would be both handy enough with a bit more sight radius and one need not cut down to 8" or 10" pistol length unless one wants or needs the shortest possible rifle. |
Right.
What you are saying adds up to:
You would not wánt to cut it shorter than 20 but the first 14 do most of the pushing.
Yes I want is as mangeable as possible since I am reasoning that most of the accuracy from horseback comes from the aim, not the gun. Hence the gunstock/pistolbarrel-like combinations for mounted used for cénturies.
I am tying to keep the draw as long as possible and that will be around 13".
This would estetically match a 14" barrel but I do agree that seems raher shortish in rifle terms. The shortest Marlin carbines range from 16 to 19.
The difference between 14 and 20 is 6" of barrel which is an awful lot of weight on the worst end of the stick. Now where do I have a nice coin to flip......?
peter
Keep sight radius in mind too. Even though you have said that you aren't concerned about accuracy, you may want to shoot in competition at some point. Having a short barrel will change the sight picture considerably. The shorter distance between front and rear sights will mean that a slight mis-alignment will create a major accuracy problem down range.
| Peter Bosman wrote: |
| This would ecstatically match a 14" barrel but I do agree that seems rather shortish in rifle terms. The shortest Marlin carbines range from 16 to 19.
The difference between 14 and 20 is 6" of barrel which is an awful lot of weight on the worst end of the stick. Now where do I have a nice coin to flip......? peter |
The 16" to 19" range is mostly a " legal " issue in some countries and if there were no laws about minimum barrel length in the U.S.A. and similar ones in Canada, with some minor differences, the makers of the Marlin carbine might have chosen to cut it down to 14" depending on handiness versus all the other advantages of a few more inches of barrel length.
( Short barrels under 16" can be owned legally if a lot of legal paperwork is done ).
Not an issue or not the same issue in Spain I think based on your previous posts :!:
Quite true Lin. The amount of charge affects bullet drop too.
As I understood Jean 18" is a minimum for shotguns in most US states.
For a black powder muzzle loader things are a bit more relaxed as the law assumes firepower is a relative joke anyway.
You will find several distributors of replicas offering blunderbusses from 12 to 18" which in effect áll are shotguns under the legal limit :lol:
Meanwhile I have finished a sidebar and ring. I used 6 mm. iron ´wire´ for the bar and 5 for the ring which combines perfectly. A 6 mm. thick ring gave the optical illusion of being heavier gauge.
To give sufficient strength I needed sufficiently thick tabs to weld to the bar and although there is no way around this without sacrificing strength, it does not look quite right on the stock. I will try to sink the tabs with the screw holes a bit into the wood.
Another snag is that the parallel position may not be the most ergonomic. I will have to wait and try but I máy decide to fit the bar at an angle to the barrel axis.
peter
As I understood Jean 18" is a minimum for shotguns in most US states.
For a black powder muzzle loader things are a bit more relaxed as the law assumes firepower is a relative joke anyway.
You will find several distributors of replicas offering blunderbusses from 12 to 18" which in effect áll are shotguns under the legal limit :lol:
Meanwhile I have finished a sidebar and ring. I used 6 mm. iron ´wire´ for the bar and 5 for the ring which combines perfectly. A 6 mm. thick ring gave the optical illusion of being heavier gauge.
To give sufficient strength I needed sufficiently thick tabs to weld to the bar and although there is no way around this without sacrificing strength, it does not look quite right on the stock. I will try to sink the tabs with the screw holes a bit into the wood.
Another snag is that the parallel position may not be the most ergonomic. I will have to wait and try but I máy decide to fit the bar at an angle to the barrel axis.
peter
The barrels on our 12 gauge entry guns are 14". I love how handy they are. I guess if all other issues allowed that short of a barrel (aesthetics, powder burn, rifling utilization, etc.) I would opt for that length.
Thank you Allen.
I am pre-fitting the components now so as to check if there is no sofar overseen NoNo that dictates no less than X inches.
It would be níce if I could keep the overall length under 30 inches as I can use an antique canvas/leather gun case for storage and transport. Not a múst but it woúld add to the package.
Will keep you posted.
peter
I am pre-fitting the components now so as to check if there is no sofar overseen NoNo that dictates no less than X inches.
It would be níce if I could keep the overall length under 30 inches as I can use an antique canvas/leather gun case for storage and transport. Not a múst but it woúld add to the package.
Will keep you posted.
peter
For those of us in the U.S. keep in mind that modifying any gun for length is a touchy subject. I'm not sure if muzzle-loaders/black powder fall into the same category, but.....
Keep in mine the 16"x26" rules when cutting anything down without an ATFE SBR (short-barrelled rifle) tag.
If I'm off-base on the appropriate laws, just ignore.... :)
Keep in mine the 16"x26" rules when cutting anything down without an ATFE SBR (short-barrelled rifle) tag.
If I'm off-base on the appropriate laws, just ignore.... :)
| Jason Dingledine wrote: |
| For those of us in the U.S. keep in mind that modifying any gun for length is a touchy subject. I'm not sure if muzzle-loaders/black powder fall into the same category, but.....
Keep in mine the 16"x26" rules when cutting anything down without an ATFE SBR (short-barrelled rifle) tag. If I'm off-base on the appropriate laws, just ignore.... :) |
Muzzle loaders are not considered weapons by the ATFE so are not restricted as to barrel length. That is why you can have a Colt percussion revolver fitted with a shoulder stock to reproduce an actual configuration in use in the 1860s.
Jean, the laws in the US governing "Class 3" weapons, i.e. sawed off shotguns and rifles, submachine guns, machine guns, etc., are pretty clear as are the penalties for disobeying them. Obtaining one is not that difficult but it is the aftermath that probably prevents a lot of folks from buying them, along with price. For example, someone who owns one of these weapons and wishes to take it across state lines to a match will have to go before a Federal judge and get a court order allowing him/her to do so. Class 3 firearms in the US are going for thousands of dollars and only persons with the disposable income and time to deal with the hassle are going to own them.
After some reflection on Peter's plans, I have come to the conclusion that cutting the barrel down as much as he is thinking of doing will wreck any accuracy the gun has with a 35" barrel. 1 in 66 is a very slow twist for use with patched round balls. Cutting the barrel down to 16" or less will prevent the bullet from stabilizing to the point that accuracy will not be much better than with a smooth bore. Historically, many extremely short-barreled shoulder arms have been smooth bores. I am thinking here of the trade guns in use in the western US during the fur trade era, many of which had shortened barrels and in some cases butt stocks. The Native American owners of these guns used them for running buffalo, i.e. hunting on horseback. The technique was to ride along side the animal, bringing the muzzle of the gun very close before firing. Many times these guns were shortened in order to keep them in use when the barrel burst.
Page 1 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum